Microsoft Encouraging OEMs to Beautify Computers

Grooves writes "Microsoft has shipped a 'Vista Industrial Design Toolkit' to PC manufacturers, meant to encourage them to design computers that are more visually appealing. From the article: 'From color palettes to suggestions about how the power and reset buttons should appear, the kit basically describes Microsoft's vision of what a Vista PC should look like. The look features accelerated curves and purposeful contrast, among other qualities.' The report goes on to say that Microsoft wants 'PCs to be objects of pure desire.' Sound familiar? It's hard to see budget-conscious OEMs stepping up to this."

What they really said...

We want you to look more like a Mac.

Re:What they really said... QWZX

Am I the only one who HATES the look of the Mac?

Yes... now go play with your dolls.

Re:What they really said... QWZX

If anything has "boy racer" looks, it is Alienware et al. Apple designs may not be for everyone, but they are generally clean and simple, while the "boy racer" look is anything but. Case windows, cold cathode tubes that flash in time with the audio, LED fans, and gaudy paint-jobs are more in the realm of PCs than Macs.

vs Apple

MS is just trying to grab a few sales away from Apple at the expense of the OEMs. Why not? MS doesn't have anything to loose on this one - the OEMs are the ones taking the risk.

Dan East

Re:vs Apple

You're right.

In the Dell Corprate HQ.... "Mike, we want you to make Dells look pretty so people won't notice Vista as much"

"Fuck off, Ballmer"

Design from MS?

Would you really want to take design suggestions from MS? I can't think of anything they've designed (on their own) that looks like I'd want to put my name on it and sell it.

Re:Design from MS?

Best synopsys of this entire issue. [google.ca]

Re:Design from MS?

I was sure you were going to link to this one [youtube.com].

The time to start worrying is now

"If you can't make it good, at least make it look good." [thinkexist.com] - Bill Gates.

haha

Sounds like Microsoft should try getting Apple to ship Macs with Windows.

Reset button

how the power and reset buttons should appear

The reset button will need to be large and easily accessible, for sure.

Oh, so important.

From TFA:

Not all OEMs are happy to see this kit. Lenovo, the company that took over IBM's PC manufacturing business, doesn't see how adhering to the design will help their company. "Our ability to differentiate ourselves comes from our industry-leading innovation," a Lenovo spokesperson told Businessweek. "And design is a big part of that."

Oh, sure. After all, we know how unbelievably gorgeous Lenovo laptops [ibm.com] are.*

Actually, I suspect that this, more than anything else, is a sign of just how concerned Microsoft is that Apple is about to eat their lunch. The "beautify the box" message is inteneded as a point of product differentiation, but the only other product in this space who is doing better than Microsoft here is Apple. Unless you know of a company who is making really attractive Ubuntu boxes. (And if so, please let me know. I have a birthday coming up.)

* I should note at this point that in my previous job I administered a lab full of IBM ThinkPads. They were absolutely monster workhorses, and I have nothing bad to say about them. I mean, other than the fact that I was stupid and didn't set BIOS passwords right away, and as a result lost one laptop to some MBA student thinking he'd be cute and setting a boot password. Whoopsie.

The Mac isn't a good comparison

I'm not sure I agree with the "Be like a Mac!" comparison. For most PC manufacturers, having their own "look and feel" has been part of what has given them a strong brand name. Sure, Microsoft wants to grab some of that brand recognition beyond just the bootup splash screen (and the desktop look and feel), but I also think this will create more than just brand recognition for Microsoft -- I believe it will also produce an interesting "playing field" for companies beyond the Big Four (Dell, Gateway, HP/Compaq, Toshiba). Consider the smaller OEMs and white box companies -- by providing a standardized look and feel, this will open the door of opportunity for many more companies. Sure, the big guys probably don't WANT this (they want to keep their look and feel in order to keep their branding strong), but it could create a new competitive atmosphere by giving smaller companies a foot in the door to compete on the look and feel front.

I've always loved third party cases and keyboards and monitors moreso than the Big Four for the same reason that I've always liked clones -- they've pushed the envelope before the big guys did. The downside is that the clones never seemed to sell well in the corporate environment nor in the newb home environment; the clones were just powerhouse sellers for us geeks. By having Microsoft "dictate" what they want to see, we may actually see more third parties offering competition to the Big Four, which in turn could see prices drop a bit more, which could push more legal Microsoft products into the fray.

All around, there are some Mac-branding similarities, but I don't really think that is Microsoft's desired goal to miMac (mimic the Mac, in my vernacular). I think it is just a good idea that will help the little(r) guys, and still give the big guys a chance to offer different products that the market can choose from.

Table of Contents

Introduction: How to Steal Back the Market from Apple - i
Getting Smart: Our new user interface needs some magic and copies Aqua -1
Making Titanium-looking cases from inexpensive aluminum -2
Preventing dual-boot -3
Wacky driver troubleshooting -4
Thwarting competing anti-virus makers-5
Understanding why we have so many versions of the same thing, and how to sell it -6
Learning how to shave like Steve Jobs -7
Appendix A: Stock options manual for new employees
Appendix B: Using your wife's PR company to kill everyone's love for you
Appendix C: Why Longhorn isn't a cheese

Mmm...desire....

Put nipples on the reset and power button. If you're going to reboot the POS everyday, why not get a little titty with it?

Dear John

Dear Microsoft,

It seems that you are doing a lot of things lately to tell me what I want out of your products. Vista's new UI, and now these fancy industrial design specs.

Guess what? I couldn't care less what the shape of my PC is. It is under the desk with my UPS, subwoofer and trash can. And I have no need for a fancy new desktop UI, especially one that takes resources away from what I actually want to do with my computer, like photo and video editing.

What I want is excellent software, compatible with open standards, for a reasonable price. You used to deliver this. When you delivered virtual memory and preemptive multitasking, you were ahead of Apple. Now you seem way behind. And also, I want you to support open standards so that I can use other products with others that haven't paid you a licensing fee, such as open source. I'm not a sheep to lock in. Hello Linux and OSX.

And your prices are far from reasonable. The fact that I can't transfer a OEM Windows licence from one PC to another is rubbish. The fact that you want $399 for the standard edition of office, which I have paid you for several times over the years is robbery. I was happy with the functionality of office five years ago. Why should I need to buy it again? Hello, Open Office.

I'm not a sheep, Microsoft. You used to be innovative. Now you are all about marketing. Its been fun, but we're breaking up!

It's an effort to justify higher prices

On one of my rare walks through Walmart yesterday, I noticed a DVD player for $34.00.

It's hard to imagine that there is $1200 worth of electronics in the new Dell computer I just got at work. As cell phones and iPod-like devices become ever-more powerful at sub-$200 prices, it's going to cast an ever-more powerful spotlight on the PC market. I've thought for some time that we are on the verge of seeing PC's become commoditized like calculators.

This latest blurb from Mircosoft is an attempt to stop PCs from becoming generic commodities - because once they start to look like that consumers will expect them to be priced like that.

I already do. :)

Steve

Those OEMs couldn't "beautify" anything

Those OEMs couldn't "beautify" anything if their life depended on it. If they could, they'd already do so. The best they can do is steal Apple's 3 year old designs.

Re:Object of Desire?!?!?!

Well, she does feature accellerated curves and purposeful contrast.

Re:The first of many such comments...

I desire my PC to be pure of spyware, security flaws and unstability.

Somehow Macs do this and manage to be sexy at the same time. That said, I have a PC at work and home. I'd buy a Mac for home except that Macs are sadly lacking in the one field in which I work (video game development).

Re:The first of many such comments...

If that's you're only reason, why don't you buy a Mac and use Bootcamp to install Windows on it? Have the best of both worlds.

Re:The first of many such comments...

You ever think that you're in a position to, y'know, change that?

Re:The first of many such comments...

Microsoft wants 'PCs to be objects of pure desire.'
I desire my PC to be pure of spyware, security flaws and unstability.

Pure desire leads to porn sites.
Porn sites lead to spyware.
I see your point.

Re:So...

Then please explain MS's 95% marketshare versus Apple's 5%

I believe that is due to misshaps that Apple made during the early and mid 90s (this is before Steve Jobs and OS X). Apple had a hard time creating a modern OS (Pink, Taligent, Copland), while Microsoft started to improve their OSes to the point that they surpassed the original Mac OS in stability and performance while almost matched it in usability (Windows 95 and especially Windows NT-based products). In 1999, I'd choose Windows 2000 over Mac OS 9 any day for most tasks. Had Apple's failed OS ventures actually didn't fail, then perhaps Apple's marketshare would be much more substantial.

Windows and non-Mac PCs are still selling very well for a few reasons. Businesses are still heavily dependent on Windows software. But the biggest reason why MS has 95% and Apple has 5% is the price of admission is much lower. You can buy an entry level desktop for $300 and an entry level laptop for $600. It would come with some Celeron processor, a somewhat shabby graphics card, the traditional bundled applications (that don't really play together with other applications, unlike iLife and OS X's integration), and XP Home. However, this is what 90% or so of the computer population wants to buy; a computer fast enough to do email, word processing, photo editing, DVD watching, web browsing, music downloading, and other everyday tasks. For them, that $300 Celeron machine or $600 Celeron laptop would suffice.

Now, if you spend $600 (or $1100 for the laptop), you can get a Mac. The Mac comes with OS X, iLife, a pretty nice processor (1.5GHz Core Solo for the $600 Mac Mini, 1.66GHz Core Duo for the $800 Mini, and 1.83GHz Core Duo for the $1100 MacBook), decent graphics (I'm typing this on a MacBook now; the Intel Integrated Graphics on this machine isn't very hampering unless you are a intense gamer, which I am not). All of the iLife applications work together. I enjoy the searching capabilities of Spotlight and use them every day. I like how Spotlight is integrated with all of my other applications. For a Unix hacker like myself, the terminal is just a click on the Dock away. I don't have to worry about bad drivers, malware, viruses, or anything like that. I work with a peace of mind.

Macs are worth the price. When I showed my parents and siblings my Mac and fooled around with it for a few days, they fell in love with it. They were sold on buying a Mac, and they are now saving up for a iMac. The problem is that cheaper PCs are good enough for 90% of the market. Windows XP "just works" now (as long as you keep an eye on security), and Vista will be far better than XP (insert "it's a copy of OS X here"; say what you want, but Vista is still better than XP). Perhaps they haven't had exposure to OS X; my parents were sold on the Mac within a few days. Perhaps they still must have a Windows PC for their jobs (and they don't know that Intel Macs can run Windows natively). Or, perhaps that money is an issue for most people.

Many people say that in order for Apple to increase its marketshare, they should release OS X to all x86 PCs. After owning a Mac for a few days, I'll disagree. Most users don't know how to install an OS, assuming that they know what an OS is. Plus, part of the benefit of buying a Mac is that you know that all of your hardware works. You don't have to scrounge the Net looking for drivers; your hardware in most cases "just works." Finally, it will make Apple have to compete with Microsoft in Microsoft's domain: OSes. Apple would be back in the Spindler/Amelio days of cloning and red ink. The best way for Apple to raise its marketshare is to lower its price of admission and provide some more variety in Mac offerings (while retaining a clear-cut consumer/pro line). How about a Core Solo MacBook for $700? How about knocking down the Mac Mini to $500 again just like it was originally was in January 2005. How about releasing that iMac for Education to the general public

Re:So...

Ummm, no. Your claim is specious. You seem to be saying that Microsoft got 95% of the market by leveraging their market dominance in an "illegal" way. You don't get 95% marketshare by being a monopoly; you become a monopoly by getting 95% marketshare. The "illegal anti-trust" activities are only "illegal" and "anti-trust" once you already have dominant marketshare, which they achieved by providing superior value (in conjunction with the hardware vendors) to the consumers.